[Sidenote: The Author.]
"Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." We can be sure that the James here mentioned is the James who acted as the first bishop of the Church at Jerusalem. The author"s designation of himself would not be intelligible unless he meant that he was related to a very prominent man of that name. The writer cannot be the Apostle Jude. He does not claim to be an apostle, and he seems indirectly to repudiate the authority of an apostle by describing himself only in relation to his brother and by referring to "the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ"
in a manner which seems to distinguish them for himself. If the Apostle Jude was the _son_ of James (as many scholars think), this Jude was clearly another man. If the Apostle was the _brother_ of James (as the English Authorised Version holds), then his identification with this Jude is still doubtful.
Jude was a son of St. Joseph. At first he did not believe in our Lord (John vii. 5), but was convinced by the Resurrection (Acts i. 14). He was married (1 Cor. ix. 5). Hegesippus, a writer of the 2nd century, tells us that two of his grandsons were taken before the Emperor Domitian as being of the royal house of David, and therefore dangerous to the empire.[1] He found them to be poor rough-handed men, and dismissed them with good-humoured contempt when they described the kingdom of Christ as heavenly. Philip of Side, about 425, says {266} that Hegesippus gave the names of these two men as Zocer and James.
The Epistle was known to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, and is in the _Muratorian Fragment_.
The chief objections to the authenticity of this Epistle fall under three heads. It is said that (a) a late date is indicated by the allusion to the teaching of the apostles in ver. 17. But the allusion seems to correspond exactly with a late date in the apostolic age, for vers. 17 and 18 a.s.sume that the readers remember what the apostles had said. It is said that (b) the phrase in ver. 3, "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints," indicates that a definite body of doctrine was recognized by the Christians of the period, and that the Christians of the apostolic age did not use the word "faith" in this sense. But it is not difficult to suppose that the word would be soon extended from the act of believing to the facts believed. And in such early pa.s.sages as Gal. i. 23 and Rom. x. 8 we find the word closely approximating to the latter sense. It is said that (c) the heresy which is described is a heresy of the 2nd century, and implies a definite Gnostic system. But the fact that the Epistle does not describe such a definite system is convincingly shown by the inability of certain critics to determine who the heretics are. The Balaamites of Asia Minor, the Carpocratians of Egypt, and some obscure sects of Syria, are all suggested. There is no evidence to show that the errors here described could not have grown up in apostolic times, and the Epistles of St. Paul contain several pa.s.sages which point to similar perversions of Christianity. The word "sensual" in ver. 19 was an insulting term applied to ordinary Christians by the Gnostics of the 2nd century, but St. Jude"s use of it betrays no consciousness of this later application.
The style of the letter makes it practically certain that it was written by some one who had been a Jew. The Greek is forcible. It shows a considerable knowledge of Greek words, {267} including various poetical and archaic expressions. But the manner is stiff, and the sentences are linked together with difficulty. Several phrases come from the Septuagint, some of them being taken from the Book of Wisdom.
It is probable that the author was acquainted with the Hebrew Old Testament, as ver. 12 (from Ezek. x.x.xiv. 2) and ver. 22 f. (from Zech.
iii. 2 f.) suggest this.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
The Epistle is simply addressed "to them that are called, beloved in G.o.d the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ." It seems that these Christians must have been natives of Palestine or Syria. They had been personally instructed by the apostles (ver. 17), which makes this region probable. No place seems more likely than Antioch and its neighbourhood. The libertinism which was endangering the Church would not be likely to arise except in a district where the Christians were in close contact with heathenism. Extreme critics now usually maintain that it was written either in Asia or in Egypt. If written in Asia, it can hardly have been written by the Lord"s brother, as we know that his descendants lived in Palestine. If written in Egypt, it can hardly belong to the age of the apostles. These two sceptical theories as to the place where the Epistle was written contradict one another effectively.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
The style and contents of the letter show that it was probably written in Palestine and at Jerusalem. The date is probably soon after the martyrdom of St. James in A.D. 62. St. Jude was dead before his grandsons had their interview with Domitian. The Epistle must therefore be before A.D. 81.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
The Epistle is remarkable as containing references to two Jewish books of an apocalyptic character which are not mentioned in the Old Testament. This caused some writers in early days to hesitate to ascribe the Epistle to a brother of St. James, and in recent times the same argument has been revived in a new {268} form. But these quotations seem quite compatible with a belief in the genuineness of the Epistle. The books quoted were in existence in the apostolic age, and would be likely to be valued by a devout Jew. In ver. 9 there is reference to Michael, which Origen says was derived from the _a.s.sumption of Moses_, a Jewish work written at the beginning of the Christian era. In 2 Pet. ii. 11 the allusion to Michael is so modified, that the origin of the reference is no longer obvious. In vers. 4, 6, and 14, there are quotations from the _Book of Enoch_, a Jewish book composed of sections written at various dates, the latest being written in the century before Christ.
The purpose of the Epistle is to warn the Church against certain depravers of G.o.d"s grace who denied "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (ver. 4). The author sees fit to remind his readers of ancient examples of unfaithfulness and impurity, and shows that they must be compa.s.sionate towards the wavering, and try to save the worst by a desperate effort. It is plain that the false teachers were guilty of gross and unnatural vice, that they were greedy, and dest.i.tute of G.o.dly fear. They also, like the evil Christians at Corinth, brought discredit upon the Agape (ver. 12), a social meal which the Christians were first wont to partake of before the Eucharist, and at a later date after the Eucharist. The licence which is rebuked by St. Jude probably arose from a perversion of the doctrine of justification by faith which had been taught by our Lord. Christians who had been taught that they could be saved without observing the Jewish ceremonial law, imagined that they could be saved without any self-discipline or self-restraint.
Many parallels to such errors have been found in modern times, the worst example being that afforded by the Anabaptists, who arose in Germany at the time of the Reformation. It is worth noticing that, in spite of the untheological character of this Epistle, the writer shows his belief in the Holy Trinity by the manner in which he refers to the Father {269} and Jesus Christ (ver. 1) and the Holy Ghost (ver. 20).
The Epistle gives no encouragement to the theory that the first Jewish Christians were Unitarians.
a.n.a.lYSIS
Salutation and charge to maintain "the faith" (1-4). Warnings from the punishment of the Israelites, of the angels, of Sodom and Gomorrha (5-7).
Railing at dignities rebuked (8-10).
Denunciation of those who imitate Cain (murder), Balaam (encouragement of impurity), Korah (schism), and spoil the _Agape_ (11-13).
These sectaries foretold by Enoch (14-16).
And by the apostles (17-19).
Duty of edifying believers, and saving sinners (20-23).
Doxology (24, 25).
[1] Eusebius, _H. E._ iii. 20.
{270}
CHAPTER XXV
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE
[Sidenote: The Author.]
Like the First Epistle of St. John, the Revelation has particularly strong external evidence in its favour. About A.D. 150 Justin Martyr speaks of it as the work of "John, one of the apostles of Christ," in his dialogue held with Trypho, a Jew, at Ephesus, where St. John had lived. Still earlier, Papias looked upon the book as "inspired," and "bore testimony to its genuineness." Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, quotes it as written by "John, the disciple of the Lord." About A.D. 170 Melito of Sardis, one of the places to which part of the book was specially addressed, wrote a commentary upon it. It was accepted by the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul in A.D. 177, for they wrote of it as "Scripture" in their letter to the Christians of Asia Minor. Near the same date the _Muratorian Fragment_ mentions it twice. It will be observed that this evidence is not only good, but it is also mostly drawn from sources which were most closely connected with St. John. The evidence of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons would be important, even if it stood alone. For these Greek-speaking Churches were allied with the Church of Ephesus, and were not likely to be mistaken about this question. And the evidence of Irenaeus and Melito is still more weighty.
Strange to say, the belief in the authenticity of the Revelation began to waver as time went on. We need pay little heed to the sect known as the Alogi, who attributed both St. John"s {271} Gospel and the Revelation to Cerinthus, because they disliked the doctrine of the Logos contained in these two books. They were too ignorant to have been influenced by any real critical knowledge. But it is an important fact that about A.D. 248 Dionysius of Alexandria stated that it was probably written by John the Presbyter, and that the great Eusebius seems at one time to have been inclined to accept the opinion of Dionysius.[1] So far as we can discover, Dionysius founded his opinion solely on the difference of style which can be observed as separating the Revelation from the Gospel. He does not seem to have been in possession of any facts which gave historical support to his theory.
Nevertheless, we can legitimately think that there was another reason which induced orthodox Christians to regard the Revelation with less confidence. The Montanist sect, which arose in the latter half of the 2nd century and became powerful in Asia Minor and North Africa, taught an extravagant doctrine about the millennium when Christ would return to reign on earth. This doctrine was partly founded on Rev. xx., and was supported by pretended prophecies. It caused orthodox Christians to be more suspicious about the statements of Christian prophets, and probably made them less anxious to translate and circulate the Revelation. This hesitation was soon overruled, and Eusebius, in spite of his own slight doubts, reckons it as received among the undisputed books of the Canon. This was c. A.D. 320.
In modern times the controversy about the authorship has been revived.
About one hundred years ago a school of critics took up the argument of Dionysius. They urged that the Gospel and the Revelation must have been written by two different authors, the Revelation being much more Hebrew in style than the Gospel. The argument was elaborated by F. C.
Baur and the Tubingen School. As they were determined to deny the genuineness of the Gospel which so clearly teaches {272} that Jesus is G.o.d, they tried to discredit the Gospel by insisting upon the authenticity of the Revelation. The successors of these critics soon found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. A closer examination of the Revelation made it clearer that on many important points the theology of the Revelation is the same as that of the Gospel. If they admit that St. John wrote both the books or one of them, they will be forced to admit that the apostle taught definite orthodox Christian theology.[2] If, on the other hand, they affirm that both the books were written by John the Presbyter, they will shatter the old argument that diversity of style proves diversity of authorship. It will therefore surprise no one to learn that they are now engaged in continuous disputes with regard to the ident.i.ty of the author, and the materials, Jewish or otherwise, which he is supposed to have used in compiling his book. At the present time the writers who hold the Revelation to have been written by various authors, are divided into no less than four camps, while the rationalists who hold that it was written by one author cannot agree who that author was. It is extremely significant that, in spite of his conviction that the book was not all written at the same date, the critic who is now by far the ablest opponent of orthodox Christianity, holds that the Revelation was (i.) published in the time of Domitian, as the tradition of the Church affirms; (ii.) published by the author of the fourth Gospel, though not by the real St. John.[3]
It must be admitted that the style of the book is more Hebrew and less Greek than that of the Gospel. But some arguments may be reasonably alleged against the theory that {273} this proves the Revelation to be by a different author. The difference in the scope and origin of the two books account in a large measure for the differences of vocabulary and style. No book in the New Testament is so steeped as the Revelation in the imagery of the Old Testament; Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are constantly used. The thoroughness with which their spirit has been a.s.similated, and their ideas combined by the writer, would create a Hebrew tendency in his language. Whether St. John made use of the material furnished by non-canonical apocalypses is uncertain. If he did, their style would also influence him in the same way. We must also beware of exaggerating the contrast in style which does exist between the Gospel and the Revelation. The Gospel is not always in correct Greek, and never shows a thorough mastery of that language. But the Revelation is certainly in much rougher Greek. The writer uses the nominative case for the accusative (vii. 9; xiv. 6); similar instances are in iii. 12; xiv. 12. This rugged usage is introduced with magnificent, and perhaps intentional, effect in i. 4, where the author emphasizes the eternity of G.o.d by using an entirely ungrammatical construction.[4] Apart from the question of grammar, the language of the Apocalypse shows a remarkable affinity with St. John"s Gospel. We may observe the use of such words as "witness," "true," "tabernacle," "have part," "keep the word," and "overcome."
The theology of the two books is in close agreement. This can easily be shown in the case of the doctrine of Christ"s Person. He is called the "Lamb" [5] in the Gospel (i. 29, 36) and in the Revelation (v. 6, 8, 12, etc.). He is called the "Word" in the Gospel (i. 1, etc.) and in the Revelation (xix. 13). He is taught to be eternal and divine.
He is "the Alpha and {274} the Omega, the first and the last" (xxii.
13; cf. Isa. xliv. 6). He shares the throne of G.o.d (xxii. 1, 3); He determines who shall be released from the realm of death (i. 18); He joins in the judgment (vi. 16); He is worshipped by the elders and the angels (v. 8, 11). He is the Bridegroom of the Church (xix. 7; xxi. 2, cf. John iii. 29). The att.i.tude towards Judaism is the same as that in the Gospel. The Jews who oppose Jesus are strongly denounced (iii. 9), and though the Church is a new _Jerusalem_, it is composed of people gathered out of every nation (vii. 9). The necessity of good works is strenuously upheld (ii. 5, 19); but they are not works of rabbinical righteousness, but works of Jesus (ii. 26), and the "righteous acts of the saints" (xix. 8) are based on "the faith of Jesus" (xiv. 12).
Salvation is the free gift of Christ (xxi. 6; xxii. 17). The saints who overcome, conquer not by relying upon their own righteousness, but "because of the blood of the Lamb" (xii. 11).
In the Revelation (ii. 17) Jesus promises to believers "the hidden manna;" in the Gospel, referring also to the manna, He promises "the true bread from heaven" (John vi. 32). In the Revelation (xxii. 17) Jesus says, "Let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely;" in the Gospel He says, "If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink" (John vii. 37). If, then, the Revelation is full of Hebrew expressions, it is essentially and profoundly Christian, and linked with the other Johannine books by the closest kinship. The theology and the style of the Revelation are the same throughout.[6] We can therefore reject without hesitation the recent hypothesis that it is one large Jewish work with numerous Christian interpolations. The difficulty of supposing that the book was ever a purely Jewish Apocalypse {275} can quickly be realized by any one who undertakes to strike out all the Christian allusions in the book.
The author states that he is John, in the strongest fashion both in the beginning and end (i. 4, 9; xxii. 8), and his att.i.tude towards the seven Churches is inexplicable unless the writer held a position of the highest ecclesiastical importance.
[Sidenote: For whom written.]
Plainly for the whole Church, as represented by "the seven Churches which are in Asia" (i. 4).
[Sidenote: Date.]
From i. 9 we learn that the revelation was made to John when he "was in the isle that is called Patmos" (in the Aegean Sea) "for the word of G.o.d and the testimony of Jesus." Irenaeus expressly says that the date of this banishment was at the end of the reign of Domitian (Emperor 81-96 A.D.), and therefore he says it was almost within his own generation. On the other hand, some modern writers have a.s.signed part or the whole of the book to the time of Nero (54-68), or a little later. But though some parts of it seem earlier than Domitian, the final form of the book is unquestionably late. A late date is indicated by the corruptions existing in some of the Churches addressed, by the expression "the Lord"s day" (i. 10) instead of the older expression "first day of the week," by the strong opposition to Judaism which is called the "synagogue of Satan" (ii. 9; iii. 9), and above all by the att.i.tude of the writer towards Rome. The imperial rule is no longer regarded with the tolerance which we find in Acts and in St. Paul"s Epistles. It is no longer the "restraining" and protecting power. It is denounced as cruel and aggressive, and not only is the worship offered to the Roman emperor mentioned as widespread, but also the worship offered to Rome. The city is called the Great Harlot, because in prophetical language idolatry is described as an act of fornication, being a violation of the pure love which should be felt by man towards his Creator. The worship of Rome does not seem to have become common in {276} Asia until late in the 1st century, and it is not even mentioned once in Acts.
The destruction of Jerusalem is definitely mentioned in xi. 2, where the earthly Jerusalem is symbolized as the "court which is without the temple," the temple which the prophet measures being the heavenly temple only (xi. 19). This chapter seems to imply that Jerusalem is already destroyed, and is founded on Ezek. xl., when the prophet measures the ideal city, not the city which had been destroyed previously. We are therefore pointed to a date later than A.D. 70.
The same seems to be suggested by xiii. 1 and xvii. 10. For the beast in xiii. 1 is the pagan Roman State as typified by Nero, and so is the number 666 in xiii. 18; for if the words Nero Caesar are written in Hebrew letters, and the numerical values of the letters are added together, the result is 666. In xvii. 8 Nero is described as dead, and in xvii. 10 Vespasian is the sixth emperor, t.i.tus the seventh, and the eighth, in xvii. 11, is Domitian, who plays the Satanic part of Nero.
The sixth emperor is described as still living, and we therefore seem compelled to a.s.sign part of this pa.s.sage to Vespasian"s reign.
Nevertheless, there is abundant internal evidence for thinking that the book was not completed until the time of Domitian. It is worth noting that Domitian exacted a more extravagant worship of his own person than any previous emperor, and that his policy therefore made the publication of the book doubly appropriate.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
There were a number of Jewish books called by the name of Revelation or Apocalypse (_i.e._ revelation or unveiling). In the Old Testament an Apocalypse is to be found in the second part of Daniel, and there is a fine short Apocalypse in Isa. xxiv.-xxvii., where we find striking pa.s.sages relating to the resurrection and eternal life. The _Book of Enoch_ and the _Apocalypse of Baruch_ are later examples of this cla.s.s of literature. These books were generally written with the special purpose of giving encouragement to the {277} servants of G.o.d in times of distress and persecution. The Revelation of St. John was written under similar circ.u.mstances, but is by far the most sublime of these writings. The interpretation of the Revelation appears to have always been a standing difficulty, in spite of the fact that there has been no age of the Christian Church which has not been able to draw consolation and vigour from its beautiful pages, all illuminated as they are with glowing pictures. The question as to whether different portions of the book were written at different dates, and afterwards edited in one volume by the writer, does not necessarily interfere with the interpretation. For the book is one work, the materials have been fitted into one structure.